in PDF - Tamil Nation & Beyond

against the South African apartheid regime which had imprisoned President NelsonMandela for more than twenty years.The US points out that 146 countries have signed up to the non proliferation treatyand insists that India should 'put the brakes on its slide away from the internationalmainstream'. But, the US itself has not yet ratified the treaty. Furthermore, it hascarried out over a thousand nuclear tests as against the five carried out by India, and atthe latest count had a stockpile of over 8000 nuclear devices - enough to destroy theearth and all its inhabitants, several times over.France and Russia have deplored the Indian nuclear tests but have stopped short ofoutright condemnation and have dragged their feet at imposing sanctions. They arenot in the business of giving an entirely free hand to the US to set the agenda in worldaffairs.Pakistan and China have been vociferous in their condemnation of India. BothPakistan and China are India's immediate neighbours. At the same time, each of themhave close ties with the United States. The closeness of US-Pakistan military linkswas strengthened during the Soviet - Afghanistan conflict. In the case of China, theintimacy of the relationship is shown by an example of 'co-operation' in 1979, givenby President Carter's former National Security Adviser Brzezinski. He writes:"I informed the President that Deng (the Chinese leader) told Vance and me thatChina approved of our decision to support the Shah in Iran, that in the Chinese viewthe United States should be more active in strengthening Pakistan, and -somewhat ominously - that Deng wished a private meeting with the President onVietnam.I sensed from the tone in which Deng asked for this that we would be hearingsomething significant, especially given mounting indications that the Chinese wouldnot sit back idly as the Vietnamese continued their military occupation of Cambodia.when we sat down together in the Oval office, I had a general sense of what wascoming...None the less, there is a difference between anticipating a situation and actuallyexperiencing it. There was something grave and very special in the calm, determinedand firm way in which Deng Xiaoping presented the Chinese case. China, he said, hadconcluded that it must disrupt Soviet strategic calculations and that 'we consider itnecessary to put a restraint on the wild ambitions of the Vietnamese and to give theman appropriate limited lesson'.Without detailing at this stage what the lesson specifically would entail, he added thatthe lesson would be limited in scope and duration. He then calmly diagnosed for usvarious possible Soviet responses, indicating how China would counter them. Heincluded among the options 'the worst possibility', (a Soviet nuclear response) addingthat even in such a case China would hold out. All he asked for was 'moral support' inthe international field from the United States". (Zbigniew Brzezinski - Power andPrinciple, published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983)

When China invaded Vietnam in February 1979 - a twenty day invasion to 'teachVietnam a lesson', the US stance in the international arena helped to stall any adverseresolution by the Security Council on the Chinese invasion.Sri Lanka’s responseAgain, unlike China and Pakistan, Sri Lanka, another neighbour of India, was quickto declare that it had no objection to India becoming a nuclear power.Soon after the Indian General elections (in February 1998) which saw the election ofsupporters of the Tamil Eelam struggle, such as the PMK and Gopalaswamy'sMDMK to the Lok Sabha, the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister visited New Delhi. On hisreturn, the Sri Lanka newspapers proclaimed that the Indian Prime Minister hadassured Sri Lanka 'not to worry about Tamil Nadu.' That, ofcourse left open thequestion as to what it was that Sri Lanka should worry about.Sri Lanka would not have been unaware that the central premise of Indian foreignpolicy during the past several decades has been directed to excluding extra regionalpowers from the Indian region. It was a policy that was promoted at the 1975 nonaligned conference in Colombo, by Sri Lanka Prime Minister, SrimavoBandaranaike when she proposed the Indian Ocean Peace Zone.It was the election of the West leaning Sri Lanka Prime Minister J.R.Jayawardene in1977, and the building of the Voice of America installations in the island, whichled India's Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to give covert assistance to the Tamilresistance movement during the period upto 1984. These same considerations alsoinfluenced the actions of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi during period after theassassination of Indira Gandhi. The Exchange of Letters annexed to the 1987 Indo SriLanka Accord made this explicit.. Clause 2 of the letter dated 29 July 1987 from theIndian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to Sri Lanka President J.R.Jayawardene said:2. ....., you had, during the course of our discussion, agreed to meet some of India'sconcerns as follows:-I) Your Excellency and myself will reach an early understanding about the relevanceand employment of foreign military and intelligence personnel with a view toensuring that such presences will not preJudice Indo Sri Lanka relations.II) Trincomalee or any other ports in Sri Lanka will not be made available for militaryuse by any country in a manner prejudicial to India's interests.III) The work of restoring and operating the Trincomalee Oil Tank will be undertakenas a joint operation between India and Sri Lanka.IV) Sri Lanka's agreement with foreign broadcasting organisations will be reviewed toensure that any facilities set up by them in Sri Lanka are used solely as publicbroadcasting facilities and not for any military or intelligence purposes.In 1998, under President Chandrika Kumaratunga's dispensation, Sri Lanka was, nodoubt, concerned to secure that there was no repetition of the events prior to 1987.

Jayanath Rajapakse, International Affairs Adviser to President ChandrikaKumaratunga declared in a recent article:"... South Asia has an advantage over others, in that regional leadership isindisputable... One test will come with the filing of nominations for permanent seatsin an expanded UN Security Council - whenever that happens. India's would be theonly viable regional candidature for such a seat.... Certainly no other Asian candidatecould be expected to reflect South Asia's particular concerns... " ( South AsianProspect - Perceiving Reality - Lanka Guardian, May 1998)The decision by India, on 11 June 1998 to extend the ban on the Liberation Tigers ofTamil Eelam, for a further period, on the ground that LTTE was a threat to the unityand integrity of India, must have been received with some satisfaction by Sri Lanka.The US whilst, ofcourse, understanding the special reasons which may haveinfluenced Sri Lanka's decision to support India, may nevertheless have beenconcerned at the effect that such an open declaration by a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty, may have on other signatories. This may explain the somewhatcircumspect, but pointedly public, US response:"A US embassy official in Colombo says the American Ambassador has requested ameeting with Sri Lanka's Foreign Minister to learn Sri Lanka's position on India'snuclear tests. The embassy spokesperson says the ambassador is seeking anexplanation of a foreign ministry statement that supports India's nuclear test series -because Sri Lanka is a signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. US embassyofficials say the United States is interested in finding out why Sri Lanka chose tosupport India so openly." (Voice of America, 19 May 1998)Sri Lanka's private response to the American Ambassador, would no doubt have takeninto account Sri Lanka's structural dependence on foreign aid. The Paris AidConsortium (including Japan), at its meeting held on 27 May 1998, did pledge 780million dollars of aid to Sri Lanka, though the Western donors trimmed theircontribution by 10%.Here, it may be useful to remember the words of Sardar K.M.Pannikar who served as,Indian Ambassador to China from 1948 to 1952:''The public habit of judging the relations between states from what appears in thepapers adds to the confusion. It must be remembered that in international affairsthings are not often what they seem to be. .. A communique which speaks of completeagreement may only mean an agreement to differ. Behind a smokescreen of hostilepropaganda diplomatic moves may be taking place indicating a better understandingof each other's position. ...'' (Sardar K.M.Pannikar - Principles and Practice ofDiplomacy,1956)Complex power balancesThe world wide web of power balances is an increasingly complex one. PresidentCarter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote perceptively in 1983::

".... The population of the world by the end of this century will have grown to some 6billion people.... moreover most of the increase will be concentrated in the poorerparts of the world, with 85% of the world's population by the end of this centuryliving in Africa, Latin America and the poorer parts of Asia....Most of the third world countries... are likely to continue to suffer from weakeconomies and inefficient government, while their increasingly literate, politicallyawakened, but restless masses will be more and more susceptible to demagogicmobilisation on behalf of political movements... it is almost a certainty that anincreasing number of third world states will come to possess nuclear weapons.... . theproblems confronting Washington in assuring US national security will becomeincreasingly complex..." (Zbigniew Brzezinski - Power and Principle, published byWeidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983)It is not clear whether Brzezinski saw the irony in his statement that as the peoples ofthe third world become 'increasingly literate' and 'politically awakened' they will be'more and more susceptible to demagogic mobilisation'. Surely, literacy and politicalawakening will render people not more but less susceptible to demagogy.Be that as it may, Brzezinski's perception that the political awakening of the so called'third world' (in reality, the 'majority world') was a threat to US 'national security'though understandable, also reflects a failure by the US to develop a principlecentred approach to international relations - a principle centred approach which seeksgenuine win-win answers to conflicts between the US and other states, instead of theUS being seen as attempting to impose its own diktat on the world.In the context of an 'increasingly literate' and 'politically awakened' multi polarworld, the old techniques of 'balance of power', 'divide and rule' and 'my enemy'sneighbour is my friend' may be seen for what they are - techniques designed simplyto out wit your opponent. And, they may not work. No one has a monopoly of wit.Again, as Sardar K.M.Pannikar, has pointed out:''Foreign Ministers and diplomats presumably understand the permanent interests oftheir country.. But no one can foresee clearly the effects of even very simple facts asthey pertain to the future. The Rajah of Cochin who in his resentment against theZamorin permitted the Portuguese to establish a trading station in his territories couldnot foresee that thereby he had introduced into India something which was to alter thecourse of history. Nor could the German authorities, who, in their anxiety to createconfusion and chaos in Russia, permitted a sealed train to take Lenin and hisassociates across German territory, have foreseen what forces they were unleashing.To them the necessity of the moment was an utter breakdown of Russian resistanceand to send Lenin there seemed a superior act of wisdom...'' (Sardar K.M.Pannikar -Principles and Practice of Diplomacy,1956)The danger is that in a nuclear world, a miscalculation may result in mutually assureddestruction. It was Arthur Koestler who remarked in the 1950s that if he was asked:what was the most important date in history, he would say without hesitation that itwas the day when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, because on that day mankindhad for the first time acquired the know-how to annihilate the entirety of the humanspecies.

Need for Principle Centred ApproachesThe old style 'command - control' method of leadership will yield diminishing returnsin an increasingly 'politically awakened' world. Hierarchical authority may secure ameasure of compliance in the short term but it will fail to foster genuine commitmentand stability. Perhaps, the time has come for the US government, as a government ofa country that is regarded as the home of private enterprise, to itself start practisingsome of the leadership methods which the likes of Stephen Covey and Peter Sengehave advocated to successful Fortune 500 companies:"From a very early age, we are taught to break apart problems, to fragment the world.This apparently makes complex tasks and subjects more manageable, but we pay ahidden, enormous price. We can no longer see the consequences of our actions; welose our intrinsic sense of connection to a larger whole. When we then try to 'see thebigger picture', we try to reassemble the fragments in our minds, to list and organiseall the pieces. But as physicist David Bohm says, the task is futile - similar to trying toreassemble the fragments of a broken mirror to see a true reflection. Thus, after awhile we give up trying to see the whole altogether.....When we give up this illusion (that the world is created of separate, unrelatedforces) - we can then build 'learning organisations,' organisations where peoplecontinually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new andexpansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, andwhere people are continually learning how to learn together." (The Fifth Discipline :The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization - Peter M. Senge, MassachusettsInstitute Technology)There may be a need to see the bigger picture. If the US aspires to world leadership, itwill need to recognise that leadership will not come simply by the display of militarymight and economic power. It is the marriage of power with principle that will secureleadership. A leader needs to secure the trust and respect of those whom he seeks tolead - trust in his integrity and respect for the skills that he is able to bring to the taskof achieving shared goals. This is true of individuals. It is true of businessorganisations. It is also true of countries.The glaring weakness in the US stand on nuclear non proliferation is that it is notwilling to engage in discussions about the reduction of nuclear weapon stockpiles as apart of an agreement on nuclear non-proliferation. It is an approach that says: "Wewill continue to have, what we have. But no one else shall have, what we have."The US argument that 'the Indian government at this point appears to care more fornarrow political interests, than for its role in the international community."(Rediffusion News Report, 16 May 1998) would have carried more weight, if it wasnot self evident that the US stand was itself directed to secure that which the USperceives to be its own 'national security' interests.Nothing is gained by the visceral language that some US commentators have used:"In some of the sharpest commentary heard so far, former Under Secretary of StateLawrence Eagleburger did not want "pipsqueak countries" like India to be recognised

as nuclear powers. His colleague Robert McFarlane was even more visceral in theNew York Times. 'We must make clear to the Indian Government that it is today whatit was two weeks ago, an arrogant, over reaching cabal that, by its devotion to thecaste system, the political and economic disenfranchisement of its people and itsreligious intolerance, is unworthy of membership in any club" (Indian Express 31May 1998)The comments by ex President Carter which appeal to reason and principle deservethe attention of a wider audience." 'It's hard for us to tell India you cannot have a nuclear device when we keep ours --8,000 or so -- and are not ready to reduce them yet," he (ex President Carter) saidduring a commencement address at Trinity College in Hartford yesterday. The U.Spolicy on nuclear weapons and landmines "smacks of hypocrisy," Carter noted. Theformer President also pointed out that U.S advises India to sign the ComprehensiveTest Ban Treaty but it has not ratified it yet. Condemning the superpower's claim toreduce nuclear arsenals, he said, "the Start-II treaty was passed about eight years agoand has still not been ratified by the U.S or Russia." (PTI, 18 May 1998)Again, there are those who take the view that India's nuclear tests moves India awayfrom Gandhi. The logic of such a viewpoint may also lead them to call upon India(with the fourth largest army in the world) to abandon its conventional armed forcesas well.Here, the story of the wandering sadhu (holy man) who visited an Indian villagewhere many had died as a result of being bitten by a snake, comes to mind. As thestory goes, the sadhu advised the snake against killing and persuaded the snake togive up its evil habits. An year later, the sadhu returned to the village to find the snakeshrivelled up and in agony and pain as a result of the injuries caused by stonesthrown by villagers who were no longer afraid of it. The snake told the sadhu: " Ifollowed your advice - and see what has happened to me." The sadhu replied: "I toldyou not to bite - but I did not tell you, not to hiss."David Landes has analysed the First World's phenomenal wealth and power, in a newbook titled 'The Wealth and Poverty of Nations : Why Some Are So Rich and SomeSo Poor ' Landes suggests that one of the three main reasons that Europe earned itswealth was that Europeans mastered the power to kill. They learnt about gun powderfrom Asia - China originally - but they learnt to make it better and their guns firedstraighter and farther. Perhaps the time has now come to level the playing field, toright the balance - and at the same time, move towards a world wide reduction innuclear and conventional weapons of destruction.India’s strength will lie not in the nuclear bomb, but in its peoplesHaving said that, New Delhi will need to recognise that, in the end, the strength ofIndia will lie not in the nuclear bomb, but in its peoples. The economy of India willnot grow unless the different peoples of India are energised to work together toachieve their shared aspirations. Here, the failure of successive Indian governments toopenly recognise that India is a multi-national state, has served to weaken the IndianUnion rather than strengthen it. The European Union (established albeit, after two

World Wars), may serve as a pointer to that which may have to be achieved in theIndian region in the years to come. There may be a need for India to recognise theforce of reason in that which Pramatha Chauduri declared more than 70 years ago:"It is not a bad thing to try and weld many into one but to jumble them all up isdangerous, because the only way we can do that is by force. If you say that this doesnot apply to India, the reply is that if self determination is not suited to us, then it isnot suited at all to Europe. No people in Europe are as different, one from another, asour people. There is not that much difference between England and Holland as thereis between Madras and Bengal. Even France and Germany are not that far apart. Ifsome of our politicians shudder at the mention of provincial patriotism, it is becausetheir beliefs smack of narrow national selfishness....To be united due to outside pressure and to unite through mutual regard are not thesame. Just as there is a difference between the getting together of five convicts in ajail and between five free men, so the Congress union of the various nations of Indiaand tomorrow's link between the peoples of a free country will be very different.Indian patriotism will then be built on the foundation of provincial patriotism, not justin words but in reality."Nuclear capability will not guarantee unity. The nuclear bomb did not prevent thedisintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the non-nuclear states ofLatvia, Estonia and Georgia. Peoples speaking different languages, tracing their rootsto different origins, and living in relatively well defined and separate geographicalareas, do not easily 'melt'. And in any event, a 'third world' economy will not providea large enough 'pot' for the 'melting' to take place.A people's struggle for freedom is also a nuclear energy and the Fourth World is apart of today's enduring political reality. India may need to adopt a more 'principlecentred' approach towards struggles for self determination in the Indian region. Amyopic approach, apart from anything else, may well encourage the very outside'pressures' which New Delhi seeks to exclude. And, if India can grasp this, then, theBuddha may have cause to truly smile.